First SpaceX Launch Countdown

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wvbraun

Guest
I don't mind another delay. They're two years behind schedule (if the original schedule was ever taken seriously by anyone), so what? Three and a half years for develping an all-new rocket is still very good. The esa's small Vega launcher will take six years to develop. As long as the first flight is a success I don't see a problem here.
 
T

tap_sa

Guest
<font color="yellow">"I dont doubt their engineering know-how"</font><br /><br />Me neither. Your proverb by Unknown coined well what I tried to say in my earlier post. I've seen the same phenomenon in software business all too many times, especially in game business when the team consists entirely of brilliant <i>tech</i> people. They'll never run out of ideas how to make this'n'that just a little bit better and if there isn't someone to shout "Stop it! It's good enough!" the deadline will keep moving indefinitely. The antithesis of this are companies like Microsoft and Nokia. Former ships OS with full of holes and latter bug-ridden cellulars. But look how succesful they are.
 
B

barrykirk

Guest
It's also called creeping elegance where the engineer keeps adding extras beyond the contract specs.<br /><br />As an engineer it is difficult to draw a line and say that a project is good enough and just finish it.
 
P

propforce

Guest
In this case, however; I think it's different. Launching a rocket is more than just building a rocket, as the Shuttle_Guy can tell you. <br /><br />The folks at SpaceX is just learning how to do this, so it takes time. But I am glad that they're taking the time rather than launch in haste for sake of schedule.<br /><br />But I also think they've already blown their $6M per launch price tag on this one. Let's see, a 2-year stretch while paying ALL the employees during this time. It's hurting Elon's pocket just a little <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
E

erauskydiver

Guest
When SpaceX does business with a customer, are they only selling a launch service or does the customer actually take legal possession of the rocket? How does it work with Delta and Atlas?
 
S

spacester

Guest
<font color="yellow">It's hurting Elon's pocket just a little</font><br /><br />I bet it "hurts so good."<br /><br />My impression from Elon is that this is a very long term investment. It's as if he hung out on message boards and saw all the appeals for a Billionaire to step forward and sink a great big wad of cash into rocket development and then decided he's the guy to do it.<br /><br />He acts pretty humble, but I see an inner cockiness. I think he thinks he could blow his entire fortune on SpaceX and still find The Next Big Idea and recover his fortune. I'm not saying he's looking to blow his fortune, but he's got a bit of a devil-may-care attitude.<br /><br />IMO he is willing to risk his entire fortune on the chance to be the first Space Tycoon. The whole thing is about managing that risk with wisdom.<br /><br />So when the common argument is made that businessmen are not going to invest in space flight until costs come down and no one can bring costs down because [whine]space flight is hard[/whine] and so there is no profit to be made so forget about private industry getting the job done, Elon says he's the guy to prove all those nay-sayers wrong.<br /><br />Just a theory, but I'm telling you this is what I read between the lines, this is not just empty optimism.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

mikejz

Guest
I would not say that Musk is a visionary, as much as pragmatist. He is an Wharton MBA after all; he started SpaceX with a business plan, and some sort of a sales forecast. From what I hear him say, he is much more of a Southwest airlines as opposed to Charles Limburger, he is not visionary, in that he does not (at least within the near term for SpaceX) see doing anything revolutionary in space that has not been done for years. He simply sees doing what is already done cheaper. The current launch industry has problems with too much legacy and a supply chain that has no incentives for reducing costs. Musk sees an opportunity to find the best talent in the Aerospace industry, that is tired of being paper pushers and powerpoint; and let them realize there visions in non-bureaucratic work place. <br /><br />Musk is simply thinking about making a healthy return on his investment—but I question if SpaceX will make him a zillionaire; unless he takes the lead in developing applications that benefit from cheaper launch prices. <br />
 
S

spacester

Guest
Well said and I do not disagree. But none of that is in conflict with my impressions.<br /><br />Mind you, this is rampant speculation on my part, but I have done some homework . . . <br /><br />IMO the Tycoon part comes in the second 10 years of SpaceX. It's kinda sorta like what Gates did. When MS started, it was not obvious to everyone that the money is in the software, not the hardware. Similarly, Elon is positioning for the new industry he's creating. Whether that's applications as you suggest, which makes sense in today's world, or just by doing volume in the launch business, or something else, I dunno. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

mikejz

Guest
Musk's goal is to make access to space as cheap as possible. <br /><br />The real money is to be made when someone figures out the 'killer app' for the cheap access to space.
 
B

barrykirk

Guest
Going back to the software analogy and the 'killer app'.<br /><br />With computers, a lot of killer apps weren't feasable when the price of the hardware was too high.<br /><br />Back in the early 1970's word processing wasn't even a possibility because the cost of the hardware was just too high. Now with PC's being so dirt cheap. Using a typewriter isn't feasible anymore.<br /><br />The 'killer app' of word processing was made a possibility only by cheap hardware.<br /><br />Cheap access to space will enable applications that we haven't even thought of.<br /><br />I still like the episode from Star Trek the original series where Mr. Spock was describing the crew of a space station that had gone insane. "They used the computer as their own personal amusement gallery" was the statement.<br /><br />I mean who would actually use a computer to play games?<br /><br />I'm looking forward to the arrival of CATS
 
M

mikejz

Guest
I agree,<br /><br />I am asking *Who* or maybe more nationalist *From Where* will this killer app come from?<br /><br />Remember, Bill Gates (software) is worth a lot more than Michael Dell (Hardware) <br /><br />Personally, I don't see manned flight as being it, while it will happen--Chemical rockets still have a price floor of a few hundret dollars a pound, so it would never be economical without a big breaktrough.
 
B

barrykirk

Guest
Your right. Without a big breakthrough there is a very definite price floor.<br /><br />Think of chemical rockets like sail powered ocean going vessels. You have a limit as to how fast you can go.<br /><br />You need to change technologies, eg. Steam Power, to get past that limit.<br /><br />There are a couple of technologies that may eliminate the chemical rocket limit.<br /><br />Chemical rockets are a near term solution. I don't think we will be using them to reach LEO in fifty years.<br /><br />1) Space Elevator<br />2) Space Tether<br />3) Light Drive<br /><br />Are all upcoming technologies that have a possibility within the next 30 years or less to make chemical rockets obsolete.<br /><br />One of the killer apps for cheap rockets is deploying a space elevator or space tether. Ironic isn't it.
 
M

mikejz

Guest
In the short term chemical still has a LONG way to go before it hits the price floor. However, the fuel is about $30-50/lb to orbit. Figure Airline like ratios (where fuel is about 20% of cost) and you have $250/lb to orbit. Figure consumables, and you have a ticket to space for maybe $75,000-$150,000; A great savings, but not something for common folk.<br /><br />If we could get fuel costs down a LOT, that might help. IE large scale nuclear to produce LH2 from water. <br /><br />The big thing I wonder, is what will really be the practicle (profitable use of space in the next 100 years) Com sats seem to of passed there prime as we droped a trillion dollars on fiber in the last decade.
 
P

propforce

Guest
<i>"...Remember, Bill Gates (software) is worth a lot more than Michael Dell (Hardware) .."</i><br /><br />BIG DIFFERENCE in the space launch market -- VOLUME & CUSTOMER BASE!!<br /><br />Or a limited volume and limited customers for a forseeable future. Not to mention a strictly regulated environment by the government.<br /><br />Apples & Oranges.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

spacefire

Guest
if somebody built a truly modular launcher...just imagine this conversation between the manufacturer and a launching agenc or customer:<br /><br />"Yeah, we need ten tons to LEO..."<br />"Ok, sir, that'd be 15 engines in three stages. I'll put an order out for them, and because you're getting more than ten we also got a ten percent discount." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
 
T

tap_sa

Guest
I'd prefer a true RLV with regular busy schedule. Then the discussion goes:<br /><br />"Yeah, we need ten tons to LEO..." <br />"OK, sir, let me check the flight manifest ... this week is booked, next week we have two flights with one tonne free space and week after that is free. Our maximum single payload is five tonnes, assembly is available at our orbital facility free of charge. We accept cash, mastercard and visa."
 
E

erauskydiver

Guest
I'm curious what kind of engineering administration/ systems engineering processes they are using. (i.e. Configuration Management, Drawing Release, Risk Management, Human Factors Evaluation & Design, etc.) I question the ability of an engineering company to design something as complex as a rocket without some version of these processes.
 
P

propforce

Guest
That reminds me that we have too much paperwork and demanding too many 9's of reliability when launching a rocket.<br /><br />I was told that when Von Braun was launching his rocket he only needed three 9's of reliability. He first asked his propulsion guy "any problem launching the rocket today", his prop guy replied "nein !!". He then turn to his avionics guy and asked the same question, and also gets a "nein !!". Likewise to his mechanical guy and also gets a "nein !!". So he said "let's launch !!"<br /><br />That's the three "9's" reliability that he EVER needed <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
H

henryhallam

Guest
If the answer is 9W, what is the question?<br /><br />...<br /><br />"Guenter, is your last name spelt with a V?"
 
E

erauskydiver

Guest
Yes paperwork and processes are not glamourous and everybody lets out a sigh when the topic comes up, but they do serve their purpose. Just look at what happens when processes arent followed and the proper paperwork is not done. (ie, the case of the toppling satellite) <br /><br />Disclaimer: This is not intended to be a reply to ShuttleGuy... I just hit the closest "reply" link.
 
S

spacester

Guest
<font color="yellow">. . . but they do serve their purpose. Just look at what happens when processes arent followed and the proper paperwork is not done. (ie, the case of the toppling satellite) </font><br /><br />Ah, but what if you really and truly tracked down the root cause of the toppling satellite? What if you looked deeper, and considered human behavior?<br /><br />Perhaps, I don't know, maybe not, but just maybe you would find that the people are so fed up with following procedures and making rules and jumping thru all those hoops that they start acting like something other than robots and take shortcuts just to retain their sanity.<br /><br />It just ain't natural, all that paperwork. Humans can only take so much of that crap. Those quality programs need to take this into consideration and then take their game to the next level.<br /><br />Just my $0.02 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
E

erauskydiver

Guest
Well there is no question that the human element failed. However, your expanation is a bit far fetched. The aerospace industry is for professionals, not people who start acting up in a certain manner and take shortcuts. And your post only proves my point. The workers either got complacent or distracted, and didnt follow the established process, and an accident resulted. Besides, without a good paper trail, accident and failure analysis would be more difficult.
 
E

erauskydiver

Guest
Yep. There's a bit more to it than that, but yes, that covers the overall description of what happend.
 
N

n_kitson

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I would not say that Musk is a visionary, as much as pragmatist. He is an Wharton MBA after all; he started SpaceX with a business plan, and some sort of a sales forecast.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I like your view comparing him to Southwest. <br /><br />Minor correction: He is not a Wharton MBA. He studied physics at U Penn and completed a dual degree in undergrad business studies at Wharton <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Maybe it's a good thing that he never went on to complete an MBA, most MBAs tend to be risk averse as they've been taught the "proper" way to run a business, which is fairly conservative and old school.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts